Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

Honestly I think your question can be summed up with because their would be no game otherwise.

That's not a good excuse for ignoring the main plot of the first game.

I wonder if they're going to release some sort of 10th Anniversary Special Here's What Really Happened And Oh Remember Those RPG Elements We Had At One Point Say Goodbye To Them edition of the first game to bring it into line with the second two.

I would totally buy a remake of ME1 with ME3's game engine and RPG systems, because the game mechanics were total shit. The fact that they had to scrap the entire thing and rebuild from scratch for ME2 is all the evidence one needs for that.

Actually, yes, "because there would be no story otherwise" is always a perfectly good reason to ignore plot points.

"We decided to throw away the planned story, and make a third game anyways, and decided that we're too lazy to come up with something that didn't contradict. Enjoy!"

No, sorry, that doesn't fly with me.

bullethead wrote:

I would totally buy a remake of ME1 with ME3's game engine and RPG systems, because the game mechanics were total shit. The fact that they had to scrap the entire thing and rebuild from scratch for ME2 is all the evidence one needs for that.

Or evidence that EA and/or Bioware decided to scrap everything (not just Karpyshyn's story) and make a shooter instead of an RPG in an attempt to expand their sales.

Actually, yes, "because there would be no story otherwise" is always a perfectly good reason to ignore plot points.

"We decided to throw away the planned story, and make a third game anyways, and decided that we're too lazy to come up with something that didn't contradict. Enjoy!"

The planned story was even more retarded than the one we got. It basically boiled down to "We're trying to come up to a solution to dark energy killing the universe... so we make all the civilizations in the Milky Way use mass effect tech, which makes the problem worse."

bullethead wrote:

I would totally buy a remake of ME1 with ME3's game engine and RPG systems, because the game mechanics were total shit. The fact that they had to scrap the entire thing and rebuild from scratch for ME2 is all the evidence one needs for that.

Or evidence that EA and/or Bioware decided to scrap everything (not just Karpyshyn's story) and make a shooter instead of an RPG in an attempt to expand their sales.

The Alliance is an extrasolar governing body, Earth itself is still divided by nation-states with their own sovereign governments. Yet ME3 makes it look like Earth is the capital of the Alliance.

And that's not even covering the Earth Born origin of Shepard which specifically states:

"You were an orphan raised on the streets of the great megatropolises covering Earth. You escaped the life of petty crime and underworld gangs by enlisting with the Alliance military when you turned eighteen."

So not only should the Earth not have a strong Alliance presence, but even the Earth Born Shepard shouldn't really care about it. This whole "Take Back Earth" approach just seemed like a desperate attempt at making ME3 more mainstream even though it already had the fame and popularity for BioWare to actually do things for the game that aren't hindered by mainstream games. I'm actually surprised Yahtzee never brought that issue up because he makes a good point about it in his review for Gears of War 3.

Yahtzee-"I'm starting to notice a bit of a recurring pattern in Shooter Season 2011, besides the usual ones like brown and characters taping their asthma inhalers to their iron sights. They all seem to have this running theme of humanity being fu***d. Not just threatened with fu***ry, but conveniently prefu***d when the game starts. Resistance 3 opens with the human race cowering in the last few orifices the Chimera haven't gotten around to sticking their co**s into and the planet about to explode, and Gears of War 3 opens with the human government having completely collapsed, the chunk brigade all living on boats, and the planet about to explode.

You see, threatening to explode the planet is something bad writers and tw**s do when they can't think of any other way to raise the stakes for the concluding installment of a trilogy. If they haven't come up with a single character whose goals and struggles we can actually feel invested in, they can always play the exploding planet card, because holy shit, I live on a planet! And there are always a few stray taint hairs on the exploding planet card from having been recently pulled from an ar**, because I don't remember anyone mentioning it before this."

The key difference that Resistance 3 and Gears of War 3 have in comparison to Mass Effect is that Mass Effect has never taken place on Earth before ME3 where Gears of War and Resistance all take place on Earth. So even if they use the holy unoriginal "Earth needs saving!" card, at least the characters are on Earth to begin with. Having Earth be the focus of Shepard's goals and the focus of the marketing campaign doesn't sound much like a Mass Effect game.

And you know the series is going out of it's way to make Earth a priority when the writers had to resort to making the Reapers skip on their #1 target, the Citadel. Why would the most crucial part of all their previous invasions over the billions of years not be to take control of the Citadel on day one? It not only houses all the council members and numerous leaders from a majority of the galaxy races but also information regarding each races' homeworlds, colonies and fleet strength. Even in ME3, it is the go to place where all the refugees are taking shelter and NOBODY IS WORRIED about a possible Reaper invasion. To make matters worse, when the Citadel does get invaded, the Reapers manage to take control of it and move it to Earth so quickly that nobody even knows about it before it's too late. Again, just so they can shift the focus to Earth.

Why do I care about this point so much? Earth is boring, overused in science fiction, and it's not what makes Mass Effect unique.

The key difference that Resistance 3 and Gears of War 3 have in comparison to Mass Effect is that Mass Effect has never taken place on Earth before ME3 where Gears of War and Resistance all take place on Earth.

Well, they take place on a planet. But Gears of War takes place on Sera - I don't even think Earth is ever referenced in the canon.

The key difference that Resistance 3 and Gears of War 3 have in comparison to Mass Effect is that Mass Effect has never taken place on Earth before ME3 where Gears of War and Resistance all take place on Earth.

Well, they take place on a planet. But Gears of War takes place on Sera - I don't even think Earth is ever referenced in the canon.

Actually, yes, "because there would be no story otherwise" is always a perfectly good reason to ignore plot points.

"We decided to throw away the planned story, and make a third game anyways, and decided that we're too lazy to come up with something that didn't contradict. Enjoy!"

The planned story was even more retarded than the one we got. It basically boiled down to "We're trying to come up to a solution to dark energy killing the universe... so we make all the civilizations in the Milky Way use mass effect tech, which makes the problem worse."

Yeah, the dark energy plot sounded pretty weak, too. The only thing that works in its favor is it would have actually been part of the story from the beginning, with the games working toward that goal all along, instead of being tacked on after the fact like the "organics and synthetics will always come into conflict!" plot.

Yeah, the dark energy plot sounded pretty weak, too. The only thing that works in its favor is it would have actually been part of the story from the beginning, with the games working toward that goal all along, instead of being tacked on after the fact like the "organics and synthetics will always come into conflict!" plot.

To a certain extent, the dark energy plot does begin from the start. ME1 introduces us to the Mass Relays and other technologies, ME2 introduces a particular problem, and ME3 would have combined them together.

Now while I certainly agree that the idea behind it seems pretty awkward (If it's such a big problem, just destroy all the Mass Effect technology!), but I'm certain that if all the original writers had stayed on throughout the series that they would have worked it all out into something better rather than outright abandoning the concept. After all, Mass Effect is in the title. Why not have that play aa major factor in the over all series than being just an in-game mechanic?

I would totally buy a remake of ME1 with ME3's game engine and RPG systems, because the game mechanics were total shit. The fact that they had to scrap the entire thing and rebuild from scratch for ME2 is all the evidence one needs for that.

Or evidence that EA and/or Bioware decided to scrap everything (not just Karpyshyn's story) and make a shooter instead of an RPG in an attempt to expand their sales.

More importantly, it WAS an RPG, to a greater extent than ME1 or 3 IMO. Down to its heart, it's a question to put together a team to perform a stupefyingly dangerous mission, and depending on what you do with this team, you could come out as an victorious badasfully awesome hero, or you could watch your entire team get totally massacred and lay down your life for the cause. Or somewhere in between (say, if you pick the wrong crewmembers for the specialist missions). Even Mass Effect 1 only gave you a choice over whether to save the Council or let them twist in the wind, and ME3 was originally just "What... is your favorite color?"

And that's not even covering the Earth Born origin of Shepard which specifically states:

"You were an orphan raised on the streets of the great megatropolises covering Earth. You escaped the life of petty crime and underworld gangs by enlisting with the Alliance military when you turned eighteen."

So not only should the Earth not have a strong Alliance presence, but even the Earth Born Shepard shouldn't really care about it.

As far as I can tell, Shepard DOESN'T care. Not about Earth as such, but about humanity in general, which is a thread that even goes back to Mass Effect 1 with all the talk about "the first human spectre" and later in his willingness to team up with Cerberus -- of all people -- just because the collectors are attacking human colonies. Hell, Shepard even goes on a SUICIDE mission with the express intention of taking down the Collectors and safeguard those colonies.

Besides, I don't think Shepard was quite as emotionally impacted by the fall of Earth so much as he was about the fall of Thessia, or for that matter, the obliteration of that (possibly imaginary) little boy on the way out of Vancouver. Shepard cares a lot more about people than places.

Why do I care about this point so much? Earth is boring, overused in science fiction, and it's not what makes Mass Effect unique.

Which is probably why we never even got to SEE Earth until Mass Effect 3. It's a boring little planet that is otherwise strategically insignificant and only became important when the Reapers used it as their forward command post at the start of the extinction cycle (thus it's slightly less important than Kar'shan, but the Batarians suck and nobody likes them so nobody's gonna rally to save their crappy little planet).

Jeyl wrote:

Hanukkah Solo wrote:

Yeah, the dark energy plot sounded pretty weak, too. The only thing that works in its favor is it would have actually been part of the story from the beginning, with the games working toward that goal all along, instead of being tacked on after the fact like the "organics and synthetics will always come into conflict!" plot.

To a certain extent, the dark energy plot does begin from the start. ME1 introduces us to the Mass Relays and other technologies, ME2 introduces a particular problem, and ME3 would have combined them together.

Now while I certainly agree that the idea behind it seems pretty awkward (If it's such a big problem, just destroy all the Mass Effect technology!), but I'm certain that if all the original writers had stayed on throughout the series that they would have worked it all out into something better rather than outright abandoning the concept. After all, Mass Effect is in the title. Why not have that play aa major factor in the over all series than being just an in-game mechanic?

Actually, it sort of seems like ME3 was leaning that way from the beginning, at least in concept. It's not hard to imagine that the "destroy" ending would have originally implied destroying all the EZo in the universe and thus removing the Mass Effect forever. "Control" would involve the Reapers forming a race of galactic traffic cops, tightly controlling Ezo cultivation and use for the galaxy's own good. Synthesis would be to convert all organic life forms into super biotics, eliminating the need for all those big dark energy-producing drive cores by allowing people to travel from planet to planet using biotic jumps or using Conduit-style mass relays to travel in person.

Unfortunately, somebody at Bioware got a hardon for Singularity Theory and they decided to do that instead. Go figure.

How does that explain the scene when Anderson suggest getting the help from the council and Shepard responds with this?

Shepard: The Council? The fight is here!

Shepard says this even if she's in a serious intimate relationship with an alien who's most likely about to be attacked by the Reapers as well. Shepard literally put place > people.

newtype_alpha wrote:

Which is probably why we never even got to SEE Earth until Mass Effect 3. It's a boring little planet that is otherwise strategically insignificant and only became important when the Reapers used it as their forward command post at the start of the extinction cycle (thus it's slightly less important than Kar'shan, but the Batarians suck and nobody likes them so nobody's gonna rally to save their crappy little planet).

Which again doesn't make any sense when there is a much better command post for their invasion at the Citadel. You know? The one place the Reapers designed to be a TRAP for all space fairing civilizations. Why hit only humans when they can hit everyone at once, EVEN humans? All the leaders would be dead, all the information about each race's colonies, defenses, strengths, colonies ect. would have been gathered and the refugees would have no where to go. Too much trouble for the Reapers? They took control of it and moved it to Earth before anyone knew what was going on!

Shooter Gameplay and graphic wise, I can kind of agree. But in terms of a consistent storyline, the scale of the locations, the variety of game play, the consequences of choices, the overall atmosphere and themes, I still consider the first Mass Effect game to be a much more enjoyable experience. Mass Effect actually made me feel like I was a part of the universe it was set in, rather than the universe revolving around me.

How does that explain the scene when Anderson suggest getting the help from the council and Shepard responds with this?

Shepard: The Council? The fight is here!

Because evidently, that's where 80% of the Reapers are. Shepard wasn't aware at the time that the Reapers had hit Palaven -- and even then, they had sent a somewhat smaller force to do that job. Likewise, Sur'kesh and Thessia didn't get hit until WEEKS later; as Udina himself put it at the Citadel "Earth is the first council world hit. By all reports, it bears the brunt of the assault."

newtype_alpha wrote:

Which is probably why we never even got to SEE Earth until Mass Effect 3. It's a boring little planet that is otherwise strategically insignificant and only became important when the Reapers used it as their forward command post at the start of the extinction cycle (thus it's slightly less important than Kar'shan, but the Batarians suck and nobody likes them so nobody's gonna rally to save their crappy little planet).

Which again doesn't make any sense when there is a much better command post for their invasion at the Citadel. You know? The one place the Reapers designed to be a TRAP for all space fairing civilizations.

The whole point of which was the Citadel was supposed to act as a control node for the mass relay network, and conquering it would cripple the network and force everyone to fight the reapers on their own, planet by planet. For whatever reason, the Reapers were unable to do it this time (even after they took over the Citadel) so obviously somebody on the Council (probably Udina/Anderson) took steps to close that particular loophole. Considering that entire aspect of the Reapers' strategy is contingent on nobody knowing that it even exists, it probably wasn't that hard to fix.

Why hit only humans when they can hit everyone at once, EVEN humans?

Because a human vessel with a mostly-human crew totally screwed up their battle plans on three separate occasions and even managed to kill one of them. So either the Reapers are scared of humans and want to make sure to overwhelm them so they can't pull some other trick out of their sleeve (which they wound up doing anyway) or they're really PISSED OFF at the humans and want to make sure they get hit the hardest of everyone. Either option is fits Harbinger's final threat from ME2:

Human, you've changed nothing. Your species has the attention of those infinitely your greater. That which you know as Reapers are your salvation through destruction.

It's probably a combination of both: the Reapers have noticed the tendency of humans to throw monkey wrenches into their plans, which has them both nervous and angry.

Shooter Gameplay and graphic wise, I can kind of agree. But in terms of a consistent storyline, the scale of the locations, the variety of game play, the consequences of choices, the overall atmosphere and themes, I still consider the first Mass Effect game to be a much more enjoyable experience. Mass Effect actually made me feel like I was a part of the universe it was set in, rather than the universe revolving around me.

That's just because the levels were smaller. There's something to be said for having to land in a random spot on a planet and then drive fifty miles across rugged terrain just to get to where you're supposed to be for the firefight. The Bioware team made the choice to eliminate all that and just have the shuttle drop you off at the mission area; it was a calculated decision that wasn't popular with everyone.

OTOH, they kind of made up for it with a uniquely nonlinear storyline. You have to visit a dozen different places and do a dozen different things in no particular order, there's a zillion side missions and a zillion random things you can do for extra money/power/prestige/gear. Unlike ME1 which was relatively short and to the point Spec Ops mission, ME2 was more of a six-month gig as a galaxy-hopping mercenary. If not for the fact that you're ultimately motivated by a singular Captain Ahab grudge against the Collectors, you could just as easily take this crew you've put together and change your name to "Dread Pirate Shepard."

Because a human vessel with a mostly-human crew totally screwed up their battle plans on three separate occasions and even managed to kill one of them. So either the Reapers are scared of humans and want to make sure to overwhelm them so they can't pull some other trick out of their sleeve (which they wound up doing anyway) or they're really PISSED OFF at the humans and want to make sure they get hit the hardest of everyone. Either option is fits Harbinger's final threat from ME2:

Human, you've changed nothing. Your species has the attention of those infinitely your greater. That which you know as Reapers are your salvation through destruction.

It's probably a combination of both: the Reapers have noticed the tendency of humans to throw monkey wrenches into their plans, which has them both nervous and angry.

Plus they were probably aware of the Prothean archive on Mars by that point and seeing as the Prothean Conduit project allowed them to set the Reaper's plans back considerably as well as leading to the loss of the element of surprise which made their quick massacre turn into a probably lengthy war of attrition they probably want to make sure the Protheans did leave anymore final postmortem "f@#k you"s laying around.

Human, you've changed nothing. Your species has the attention of those infinitely your greater. That which you know as Reapers are your salvation through destruction.

It's probably a combination of both: the Reapers have noticed the tendency of humans to throw monkey wrenches into their plans, which has them both nervous and angry.

But... he said what Shepard did changes nothing. You know what, never mind. If you like Mass Effect focusing on how humans are so special and how Earth is the end all be all place of the galaxy, knock yourself out. Me, I enjoyed the previous two games where Earth was hardly a factor and humans were simply a part of the galaxy, not the center of it.

I have enough science fiction stories covering books, tv shows, movies and games where Earth is being invaded by aliens. I don't think Mass Effect needed to resort to that trope in order to tell a compelling story with high stakes.